Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

NSW Busted for fender eliminator

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by zoot, Jul 9, 2008.

  1. Hi all,

    I just got pulled over in Sydney & grilled for 30 mins for my fender eliminator. Copped a 320 buck fine & 3 points! Really not happy as I was 1 minute from home & I could have just gone home & changed it to the oem, but no they had to fine me.

    The wording of the fine says it is for an "illegible" plate, but the plate is readable. Should I contest this? How does it work, can you end up having to pay costs etc on top of your fine if it doesnt go your way ?

    Any advice or war stories appreciated.

  2. Re: busted for fender elim

    have you got a fotie of how it was?
  3. I can take lots of photos, and the cops made sure they took lots as well.
  4.  Top
  5.  Top
  6. None of it, but the part about the dimensions and coverage of the rear guard certainly is.... You simply can't use a rear number plate as a mudguard and be within the scope of this regulation :LOL:.
  7. That's life.

    I've got no front or rear fender on my bike, but I'm prepared to pay the consequences if i get pinged on it. Such is life.

    I'm sure you could get off it with enough dollars, but is it worth it? And did they ping you for anything else? 30 minutes of grilling is a long time to just get one charge.
  8. They only fined me for the plate, I just think that the wording of the fine is wrong, maybe it should read "obscure" or "altered" , but the plate is easily readable, so I just think that it aint right to say its "illegible".
  9. What would you do if the bike doesn't have a mudguard and never had one from the factory to begin with?

  10. That's not my problem, I'm just pointing out what the RTA state as the governing regulation. My belief is that if push came to shove you might have a case to get off a charge on such a bike, but you won't on one that is modified....

    zoot, you might have half a chance because he seems to have charged you with the wrong offence (or he doesn't know the exact wording of this RTA document)
  11. Re: busted for fender elim

    Ok step 1 is ignore the B/S comments here. Most are wrong.
    If a modified bike fell within the law, you would get off.
    I'd check your eliminator. Some (not all) are legal as they cover the minimum area.

    Step 2 is write to the appropriate authority and ask (politely) for the ticket to be withdrawn as the numberplate was visible at the time and therefore the ticket is incorrect / invalid. (Be nice still)

    Step 3 wait.

    If they come back with a "get stuffed" letter, it's really not worth fighting.
    And yes, if it went to court and you lost, it could mean you pay costs.
  12. Ok step 1 is ignore the B/S comments here.

    Including the RTA document :roll:???
  13. I said comments, not authorative publications. :twisted:
  14. Re: busted for fender elim

    I would seek some learned opinion on this if it was me.
    If it was Victoria, you do indeed risk blowing more money if it doesn't go your way, but there certainly appears to be something wrong with the charge from what you are telling us. Surely it should have been something about the bike not conforming to ADRs (?)
    I can't help thinking that even if you win on that point, they'll turn around and whack you with the right charge, though.

    BTW, Re Hornets response with the NSW RTA guidelines: The only part of them that would seem to be relevant to this case is that referring to mudguards. They seem surprisingly loose, and (as far as I remember) not at all accord with those provided in the Federal ADR documents that I have seen. Looks like a tangled mess to me :?

    Edit: What Tramp said. Never mind the rest of us.
  15. Was just asking, in case it did happen to me, but I'd like to think the police in the ACT are a bunch of cool blokes who are more interested in policing real matters rather than fender eliminators :)

  16. Yep, it has no relevance to this situation! You might as well post up building regs :LOL: :p
  17. Titus is correct, they can withdraw an incorrect charge and reissue.
    It's just that it's often not worth it.

    And if the eliminator is legal they lose there too.
    (Hence my statement he should check it).
  18. Well, they're not loose at all in terms of describing the required dimensions, and proximity to the wheel; what IS loose is that bikes which clearly don't meet these requirements are sold brand-new all across this state at least, and the law is not enforced. It seems strange that the Police chose to enforce it in the case of a modified bike, but they WERE correct in doing so, as arbitrary as it seems.

    It basically boils down to the fact that laws exist which are not always enforced, but can be; ignorance of them, or deliberate contravention of, is only giving the authorities an opportunity to penalise us....
  19. If the undertail is classified as the mudguard then the 'close as practicable' is high enough that it wont bottom out on the tyre, in which case every bike I can think of brand new is OK.
    I wouldn't think the RTA can make rules that go against ADR's anyway, there's your out.
  20. Being pedantic, that booklet is titled 'Guidelines for...'

    Various definitions exist for the word 'Guideline'

    "A recommendation that leads or directs a course of action to achieve a certain goal."

    "Non-mandatory, supplemental information about acceptable methods for implementing requirements found in directives, processes, procedures, work ..."

    There are others, but that booklet looks more to me about the general requirements you'd be expected to meet to have your vehicle pass an RTA inspection. It doesn't list any laws or acts that are specifically broken.